# Editorial Corrections to the Article by V. Vorovsky
Source: Lenin Collection XVI, p. 278

EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS TO THE ARTICLE BY V. VOROVSKY

diplomacy employed all its efforts to spare the vanity of the Russian autocrat, and the shame of the peace falls far short of corresponding to the shame of defeat. Now the ruling clique breathed with relief: one burden has fallen from their shoulders___

... The development of political self-consciousness in broad strata of the people has reached such a high degree and such intensity that the people began to perceive itself as a sovereign force in the state. The idea of a Constituent Assembly... as the political expression of the sovereignty of the people, became the current slogan of the day... But two sovereign powers cannot exist in one state. They can exist in it only on condition of merciless struggle... The people... conducted this struggle, relying on the consciousness of its supreme right, on the burning necessity of freedom, on the strength of its solidarity... And every new blow dealt to the military force of tsarism pierces a breach, into which there surge the forces of revolution...

...We pointed out at the proper time (see *Vperyod* No. 13 "European Capital and Autocracy"), that the slogan advanced by *Iskra* plays into the hands of reaction... the slogan of European reaction became — "peace at any cost"...

...Peace has now been concluded — and concluded as *Iskra* desired...

...War proved a very important and very strong auxiliary to the Russian revolution, it deserves the name of revolutionary war more than any other war, but still it was only an auxiliary, only outside assistance. History knows even stronger defeats of autocratic states, which, however, provoked not revolution, but on the contrary an outburst of patriotism. Consequently, the basic social fact is not war, but the ripening necessity of political upheaval...

...there is ground to expect that in the near future the revolution may receive a new impetus. This impetus is to be expected from the return of the Manchurian army and soldiers from Japanese captivity___

...a new defeat of tsarist power will only then strike the chains from millions of not-yet-born Russians, when millions of already living Russians reinforce this defeat by delivering for their part a blow against autocracy...

Japan did not finish off the tsarist power — this task falls to the lot of the revolutionary people. ...

The development of political self-consciousness in the working class and in broad strata of the people generally proceeded over the recent years of Russian life with unprecedented rapidity. The people began to perceive itself as the supreme sovereign force in the state. The idea of a Constituent Assembly... as the political expression of the autocracy of the people, became the current slogan of the day... But two autocratic sovereign powers cannot exist in one state. Either the autocracy of the tsar, or the autocracy of the people. Between the one and the other inevitable merciless struggle is necessary... The people... conducted this struggle, permeating itself with the consciousness of its supreme right, the burning necessity of freedom... And every new blow dealt to the military force of tsarism pierced a breach, into which there surged new waves of the revolutionary torrent.

Lenin Collection XVI.

274 LENIN COLLECTION.

...We pointed out at the proper time (see *Vperyod* No. 2 "The Fall of Port Arthur" and No. 13 "European Capital and Autocracy"),¹ that the slogan advanced by *Iskra* plays into the hands of reaction... the slogan of European reaction, of European bourgeoisie became — "peace at any cost"...

Peace has now been concluded — and concluded in exact accordance with *Iskra's* slogan...

War proved a very important and very strong auxiliary to the Russian revolution, in certain respects it fully deserves the name of revolutionary war,— but still it was only an auxiliary, only outside assistance. History knows even stronger defeats of autocratic states, which, however, provoked not revolution, but on the contrary an outburst of patriotism. Consequently, the basic social fact is not war, but the internal economic conditions of the life of the country, the development of which is incompatible with the existence of autocracy.

...there is ground to expect that in the near future the revolution may receive a new impetus. First, this impetus will necessarily come from agitation against the State Duma, regarding elections to the Duma, regarding constitutional conflicts within the Duma, should it convene. Second, the grave economic consequences of the war will begin to make themselves felt with particular force only some time after the conclusion of peace, when the burden of payment for the war becomes ever clearer and clearer. Third, this impetus is to be expected from the return of the Manchurian army and soldiers from Japanese captivity.

...a new defeat of tsarist power will only then strike the chains from millions of not-yet-born Russians, when millions of oppressed Russians now will be able to take advantage of this defeat, delivering for their part a blow against autocracy... Japan was not permitted to finish off tsarist power— this task wholly falls to the lot of the revolutionary people.

Both articles from No. 2 and 13 of *Vperyod* were written by Lenin. Articles in the newspapers *Vperyod* and *Proletarii* were for the most part published without signature. All members of the editorial board, including Lenin, frequently resorted to such references, saying "we pointed out," "we wrote," when it concerned articles not of their own composition, but belonging to any member of the editorial board.

Lenin's letter to Lunacharsky contains editorial instructions with a proposal to him to rework his article "Parliament and Its Significance." The letter was written when No. 24 of *Proletarii* was already substantially composed. The newspaper appeared once a week, and in order for the article to appear in No. 26 (dated 24(44) October 1905), Lunacharsky had to send it in reworked form to the editorial office a week before the issue appeared, that is by 17(4) October. This very date is named by Lenin as the final deadline for returning the article.

For some reason Lunacharsky failed to make the changes required by the editorial board, and the article was published (without signature) in its original form considerably later, already on 16(5) November, in No. 25 of *Proletarii*. Lenin had by that time left Geneva for Stockholm. M. Olminsky left after him, and V. Vorovsky remained as the sole actual head of the editorial office. Without Lenin it fell to them to use the available supply of material for the remaining Nos. 25 and 26.

*LETTER TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY REGARDING HIS ARTICLE "PARLIAMENT AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE"

11 Oct[ober] [1905, Geneva].

Dear Anatoly Vasilyevich! Your article takes up an extraordinarily interesting and extremely timely subject. Recently, the *Leipziger Volkszeitung* in an editorial mocked the zemstvo people for their IX Congress, [saying] that they "play at constitution," pose as parliamentarians, etc. etc. The error of Parvus and Martov necessarily requires analysis from this angle. But you haven't produced an analysis. In my opinion, you must rework the article in one of two directions: either shift the center of gravity to our "playing at parliamentarism" neo-Iskrists, show in detail the conditional temporary significance of parliamentarism, the vulgarity of "parliamentary illusions" in an epoch of revolutionary struggle, etc., explaining this from the ground up (very useful for Russians!) and involving Hilferding only for illustration, very slightly. Or take Hilferding as the basis, and then you'll have to rework the article less, giving it a different title, but delineating more clearly the very formulation of the question by Hilferding. Of course, you may perhaps find another plan for reworking, but please by all means undertake it at once. There is time, because in this No. the article couldn't go in (Moscow events plus old material have filled everything). So the deadline for sending it is Tuesday 17.X. I earnestly beg you to write a detailed piece and send it by 17.X. Better to rework it in the first direction, perhaps an editorial will come out!

If we already had a parliament, we would be obliged to support the Kadets, Milyukov and Co. against the *Moscow Gazette*. For instance,

— September. Ed.